This week we’ll introduce a new candidate, a forerunner who despite is late appearance has still many demagogic tools in his arsenal.

You know, the one that calls himself classical liberal but refuses to acknowledge the main principle of classical liberalism : the right of a civilization to govern itself.

While I have no doubt that Gary Johnson would be a perfectly good “liberal” candidate, as in left-wing socialist hippie, I have a hard time seeing him as a classical liberal of any form.

I don’t know what is a bigger spoliation than to refuse to a nation the right to govern itself.
I don’t know what is a bigger violation of private property than to allow invasions for foreign countries, and even encourage them (we are talking about the man who wants amnesty for all illegals).

It’s funny that when the US Army intervenes in Afghanistan or Syria, the globalist media is always whining about “invasions”, “unconstitutional wars”, and so forth. But they always fail to show the REAL invasion going on : illegal immigration.

But the global agenda will never allow a serious candidate for president of the United States, as their goal is that we become a mediocre country lacking our own culture, destroyed by 60 years of ethnomasochism, and being controlled and occupied by foreign interests.

I strongly criticize Gary Johnson’s views on immigration, but you would think that as a so-called “libertarian” he would at least have a decent economic program right ?

Bullshit, his economic plan is probably the weakest of any candidate (even behind Obama).

Abolish tariffs ? Seriously ? So how are you going to get any state income ? Tax labor ? capital gains ? VAT ?

How can you call yourself libertarian and want to tax labor ? As a matter of fact, how can you be in the twenty-first century and want to tax labor ?

He always brags about how he balanced the budget as governor (what more or less every republican governor has ever done), but it’s quite easy to do so if you’re going to tax capital, labor and consumption.

The real question to ask yourself is : what will be our economic situation in ten years, once every company will have moved offshore ?

High tariffs are an incentive for a company to move somewhere, as well as low labor/capital taxes. Gary Johnson wants the opposite for our country, the opposite of what has always worked, the opposite of what is working RIGHT NOW for the top exporters in the world and those who at least have a positive trade balance.

Will it work for the USA ? Has it ever worked for anyone who has applied it ? No.
Does it buy votes ? Does it seems serious to the uneducated masses ? Apparently.

I don’t know what’s the worst in all this : that an ignorant like Gary Johnson would become a presidential candidate, or that some people take him seriously.

Many of the mass media operatives and anti-American propagandists are once more desperately trying to bring Ron Paul back into the public debate and the media eye, somehow by alleging him as the new liberal “revolution” and anti-establishment candidate.

Passing on the fact that he is as anti-establishment as Arthur Ruppin was anti-Zionist and that most of his proposals are just rehearsals of previous internationalist and globalist political beliefs coupled with even more ethnomasochism, there is at least some truth to the media propaganda for once : Ron Paul is liberal. Liberal as in real liberal, not left-wing progressive. I intentionally avoid the label classical liberal.

Now if the media for once got their facts right, they are of course completely wrong in their analysis of these facts.

Many representatives will say that Ron Paul popularized, or re-popularized, liberalism. Some will even go so far as to say that Ron Paul is popular because of his liberal views.

But I assure you, if Ron Paul manages to combine popularity in the globalist media and liberal views, there is no causality involved at all. I would go so far as to say that not only Ron Paul is not popular because of his liberal views, but rather popular despite his liberal inclinations.

Notice that those that support Ron Paul, that is to say every internationalist media to an extend, doesn’t do so because Ron Paul opposes public spending, governmental regulations and Keynesianism, but rather because he is seen as an objector to what they call “American imperialism”.

Ron Paul isn’t that much more economically liberal than Newt Gingrich or Ronald Reagan, but the reason he gets support from the anti-American media is simply because he has a very globalist and demagogic message : peace.

Furthermore, Ron Paul also has support for opposing the government, which is the new scapegoat of 2012. And by opposing I mean deluding himself and blaming everything on. But what he forgets is that liberalism isn’t particularly anti-government at all.

Liberalism doesn’t have to mean a limited government, rather an efficient government.

The media are dead wrong to believe that liberalism has rejuvenated. Liberalism means individual responsibility, and ethnomasochism is far from individual responsibility.
The more the American people strive for globalism, foreignism and anti-Americanism, the more they will be drawn to socialism regardless. If liberalism is a little more popular now than it used to be, it’s simply the result of the Bush/Obama fiasco.

But don’t delude yourself into believing that liberalism is back on the political agenda and that the United States citizens will suddenly change their political and ideological views. Nowadays Americans, if we can even call them Americans, are far too attached to the socialist values that gave birth to internationalism and ethnomasochism in the first place : collective irresponsibility, group think and sheep mentality.

Surely many Americans are the biggest sheep in the world, and even more surely these same Americans will pay the price for this naivety in a very near future. Unfortunately, many not-so-sheep Americans will also have to pay the same price. That’s the beauty of collective irresponsibility.

I don’t know if you watched Ron Paul’s speech to a Town Hall meeting in Maryland, but it’s very revealing concerning his ambitions as a president.
A very interesting segment was when he said that we should all unite under our love for liberty and forget communities and differences. Replace liberty with equality and you have the exact same speech as Lenin. Anationalism in other words.

It’s funny how the globalists are always demanding for sacrifices in the name of a “greater good”, such as globalism, freedom. But what they won’t tell you and Americans won’t seem to realize is that it’s always the same that are performing these sacrifices (Americans) and the same that are on the receiving end (the foreign).

You don’t see such speeches in the European elections for example. No candidate would dare put a “greater good” above national interests. But Americans don’t seem to notice anything happening outside their borders.

You may see a lot of foreign support for Ron Paul as I previously evoked on this blog, but does that mean they like his ideas ? Or just that they want him in the White House ?

Notice that far from being ashamed of this foreign support, Ron Paul actually praises it on any possible occasion. It seems he accords even more value to foreign support than national support, which says long about a candidate to the United States presidency.

If Americans weren’t so much following the sheep mentality and mindless group-think they’d start to look a little closer at the foreign governments, and start to notice some incoherence.

For example, just look at how much support Ron Paul received from France or Russia. But who are their presidents ? Libertarians or nationalists ? This applies for any other country in the world, India, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic.

Look at the polls, look at their candidates, look at their senates, look at their propositions, look at their political programs ? Do they even have a libertarian candidate ? In most cases no, and if they do it’s far from being the globalist ethnomasochist hippie-fest that Ron Paul promulgates, and a lot closer to nationalism coupled with classical liberalism.

If Americans weren’t such sheep, they’d notice that far from wanting more libertarianism for their countries, they just want Ron Paul elected as president of the United States.

But unfortunately, Americans are sheep and will suffer the consequences. Too bad. But kinda funny at the same time.
Be prepared for more OWS crap in the near future, and don’t forget the popcorn (one of the rare vestige of American gastronomy that has survived decades of global imperialism and ethnomasochism).

If you are trying to win an argument over politics in the United States, there are some advanced cheats you can easily use to discredit your opponent, such as calling him a fascist, a racist, a nationalist… or a pro-corporation. These cheats are so powerful that you can win any argument simply by using them, even against someone much more competent than you on political or economical subjects.

You see, in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis, the massive trade deficit and public debt we face, and the continuously growing influence of the foreign and foreign interests in our own country, Americans are worried about corporations.
And by corporations, Americans don’t mean corporate lobbies, they just mean American corporations. Once again, demagogy became a convenient excuse for anti-Americanism.

That just proves to show that once more Americans are blaming scapegoats, and not any scapegoat because they are actually blaming the wealth creators and the only ones that draw money into the United States, as opposed to the very common American Business Model.

Many “Americans”, loyal adepts following the sheep mentality, have expressed their desire for corporations to have less voice in the White House. They even came up with a slogan, “Corporations are not people”. Some would argue that by doing that they are shooting themselves in the foot, since most of them are also supporters of famous anti-American lobbies, such as ecology, anti-racism or even globalism. Others would also argue that the priority would be to lessen the voice of the foreign out of our politics.

Some real questions arise from these clear demonstrations of demagogy and sheep mentality, including the following, should the corporations have a bigger or small voice inside the White House ?

First of all, supposing that we should lessen the voice of corporations/companies means that they already have some, which is clearly not the case. Have you ever heard of an act favoring American companies ? Sure the international socialist media might talk to you about SOPA/PIPA, but was it really a corporate issue ? Similar laws are effective in many other countries in the world (only more nationalist version), and have proven that such laws are more of a political issue.
Furthermore SOPA/PIPA don’t really favor American corporations since most musical labels and films distributors are foreign, and these laws don’t make distinction between the origin of any intellectual propriety (unlike their European equivalents for example).

Secondly, when is the last time Obama’s administration addressed an issue that American companies/entrepreneurs have to face ? Like social dumping, foreign protectionism, foreign nationalism, foreign economical imperialism, American ethnomasochism ? Even more consternating, when was the last time any president or political candidate had an open discussion with entrepreneurs, companies or any other wealth creator ? Despite them being very good at showing appalling doses of demagogy on public media, those facts alone exhibit their clear aversion for those that are actually bringing money in the USA.

Lastly, the anti-American media is very good at pointing out the supposed size of the corporations in our politics, but they forget that the entire American system is based on feeding off of these big corporations. The middle-class doesn’t export, neither do they bring money in the USA. The companies are the most taxed entities in this country, depriving them from political power would be not only stupid but also very hypocritical. The recent American government decisions were never pro-business, and much less pro-American business.

I honestly believe that more corporation voicing their views in the political debate can only be more beneficial.

Not only is it only fare that the biggest contributors to our economy have a bigger voice, but especially since they are close to being the only ones that actually know shit about the business world and political economy.

If I wanted to see unbiased global political economics brought to the political table and had a choice between :

Unemployed hippies calling themselves the 99% and whining about the economic crisis.

Foreign news reporters writing about how globalism is good and how nationalism is bad, yet promoting the opposite in their respective countries.

…and actual companies that actually have real experience of how global economics work, I’d much rather have them inside a political debate.

In their political decisions American have for too long relied on principles, dreams, opinions, morals, ideas rather than on facts and on what actually works.

Ultimately, this is why the politicians that make the least amount of promises are always sanctioned. That tells you a lot about the voters, who at each election, will look for the person that says the most… without realizing that if he says so much, it’s because he doesn’t know shit.

Opinions and principles of our politicians are worthless, it’s time American stop the demagogy perpetuated by the media about what’s right to do, what’s ethical, what’s tolerant… and start looking at what works.

American multinational corporations, unlike most Americans, actually know what works and they also know what’s going on outside our borders. They actually know what discriminative laws they have to face when trying to implant themselves in this or that country, and also know that their foreign competitors don’t have to face these laws when implanting themselves in the USA.

I’d rather have them bring that to the political table then hear Santorum whining about Jesus or Ron Paul about torture.

The only way of seeing what works is to have actual global business experience. And actual global business experience comes from… reality, once again.

Not from Joe K. plumber since 1978 who thinks nationalism is bad because it’s “racist” and “intolerant”, not from Frank B. unemployed since always who thinks welfare is good because Obama said so, and certainly not from Jennifer A. writer for the Huffington Post who shares her political analysis every week yet learned about economy reading fucking cosmo.

It’s a notorious fact that Ron Paul, along with all the other pro-peace supporters, live in their fantasy.

Not only is “pro-peace” a totally irresponsible and globalist view, I could only imagine the reactions the Europeans would have if one of their candidates labelled themselves “pro-peace”, but it’s also very stupid.

And once again… these statements are backed by no data, or any real proof whatsoever excluding the so-called blowback.

First off, if his ideas were true, than military intervention would have preceded terrorist attacks. That not being the case, this alone should infirm his statements.

Secondly, military skids are more common in the Russian army, in the French army, and in most of NATO’s forces than in the US Army. As a matter of fact, the US Army is the most and only military force to be a minimum transparent. Why isn’t there any blowback against these forces ?

Thirdly, the Muslim terrorists claim than above being anti-American, they are “Muslim extremists”. But if that was really the case, shouldn’t they be pro-American rather than anti-American knowing that the USA is the most open country to Islam of all non-Muslim States ? We allow full veil (burqa), religious signs, the construction of minarets and we actually condemn religious offense, which is not the case in most European countries for example. Moreover, and still unlike most European countries, we don’t have any nationalist or anti-Islam political party. We don’t have any congress or white house representatives that pride themselves in Muslim and Arab torture during the wars either, unlike the European Union.

Point four, where is the blowback against Germany for the Wehrmacht war crimes ? Where is the blowback against the Red Army ? Against the Chinese Army ? Surely, they have more war crimes to their actives than the US Army.

Lastly, saying that military intervention causes blowback is a massive oversimplification at best, and a blatant attempt at obscurantism at worst.
It’s like saying that all delinquents were previously victims of delinquency, all rapists were previously rape victims, all criminals were previously crime victims (all killers victims of kill ?).

Ron Paul is denying the whole predator/prey concept, as a matter of fact he is even denying the food chain. He is saying that if a chicken never eats foxes, when he crosses the road of a fox he will go unharmed.

Think of it this way, was there more disobedience in a concentration camp in 44 or in a rehab clinic nowadays ? If you can answer this question correctly, you are probably smarter than Ron Paul. Or less delusional.

War is not a catalyst for anti-Americanism, anti-Americanism (and especially ethnomasochism from our leaders) is a catalyst for anti-Americanism.

Ron Paul, may be the best “pro-peace”, “anti-government”, “anti-war” candidate. But for sure he is far from being a “pro-reality” candidate.

Earlier this week I was seriously considering voting Ron Paul for the next presidential elections, as I stated in my last post The 2012 Demagogic Elections.

It made sense to me to vote for him because since every candidate had the same political and economical views, I might as well vote for the one that was least likely to break my balls with government intervention.

Yet after thoughtful consideration, I won’t vote for him or any other candidate this year.

Even to prevent Obama from gaining a second term mandate, I really don’t see myself signing an adhesion charter to his values.
Maybe if there was another Tea Party candidate presenting himself could I, at a pinch, hold out my ballot, but for me Ron Paul is one of the most despicable politicians.

As much as I hate Santorum and Obama for their efforts to destroy what is left of American culture, at least they have a bit of integrity and at least will they go against the public opinion once in a while.
But Ron Paul no, never will he challenge the global opinion, nether will he risk his popularity, acquired less by his political skills than his inherent tendency to voice political correctness.

Always siding with the majority, with the public opinion, with the political correctness : the 99%, the foreign, the anti-SOPA, the anti-NDAA, the anti-racists…

How can a candidate call for change when he refuses to see the real problems ? Worse than the blind are those who refuse to see, remember.

How can he challenge the system when he is always looking for scapegoats for every American issue ? Note that he will always attack very little consortia, to be sure that they won’t defend themselves.
Example : the banksters (who do you know that’s a “bankster” ?), the corporations, Wall Street (when was the last time you saw a Wall Street representative on the media ?).

But he would never, for example, assault the ecological lobby which is clearly anti-American, yet receives wide support in our own nation.

Some would argue that a flu is far less inconvenient than plague or cholera, but don’t forget that in modern days a flu kills more than plague or cholera combined.

And honestly, I couldn’t vote for a candidate that :

Voiced his support to anti-American lobbies and political organizations in 2008 (Green Party)

Bases his economical program on his ideals and opinions, rather than on factual evidence and reality

Denied that Iraq’s regime was similar to the third Reich on his debate against McCain. He clearly never read the Iraqi Civil and Criminal codes, which share many similarities with the ones under the Hitler’s regime. But does he only read Arabic ? Or German ?

Uses obscurantism and massive oversimplifications when talking about the Fed, and economics in general.

Never backs up his propositions with data, and trait he shares with the liberals.

Ron Paul is either hypocritical or ignorant, and in both cases those are not qualities I would like to see in a president of the United States.

About every four years a very particular and intriguing event is held somewhere in the United States of America Demagogy, and many signs show that this year’s event will be at least as lame as every other year.

Similarly to how other countries elect representatives to govern them and act in their best interest, we in the United States of America Demagogy elect notorious globalists and demagogues to govern us, and act against our national interest.

You would be thinking that with the economic crisis that touches our country more then any other, with nationalist movements rising more than ever in Europe and every other country, with the disastrous results of half a decade of ethnomasochism and globalism, Americans would start to wake up and demand that their government start working in the national interest.

But apparently Americans are more concerned with gay rights, birth control pills and the legalization of marijuana.

These same Americans don’t seem to notice that they will soon experience a very painful blowback to use Ron Paul’s favorite term, once the Fed stops printing money. The errors of half a decade of ethnomasochistic governing and foreignism won’t be repaired with yet another bailout, and the consequences that Americans are starting to see are only the tip of the iceberg.

It was pretty funny last year to watch the Occupy Wall Street movement, yet another blatant excuse for anti-Americanism promoted by our ethnomasochistic media, because of the wide ignorance of the protesters.

Not only were they proposing even more international socialism to resolve problems created by international socialism, but really if they think our economic situation now is difficult, wait and see how it will be when the Europeans or the Russian take us over.

And no, there won’t be a massive bailout to magically solve our decades of trade-deficit, debt accumulation and other consequences to our anti-American globalist actions.

Even Ron Paul’s policies to cut government spending are widely insufficient at best, on the wrong track at worst.
As much as we need government spending’s limited, that alone won’t solve most of our problems. Germany, China, India, Denmark, France, Sweden Russia and most of the globe all have economies that are a lot more government depended than us (59% of GDP for Denmark, 56% for France) and their economy is in better shape than ours.

In 2008, we had to choose between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, but trust me in 2012 we will have both.

As long as American interests aren’t the top and only priority of the voters, you might as well keep Obama and his current administration because no candidate is projecting much change in our ideology.

And apparently, seeing the possible candidates for the 2012 elections, the public opinion hasn’t evolved one bit despite the economic crisis of 2012.

As for me, once again I will not vote for anyone.

I was considered voting Ron Paul earlier this year but seriously it’s not even worth the effort, and I wouldn’t want to encourage the globalist system with my vote.

As long as we won’t have American elections, based on American interests and not demagogy, voting will be as useless here as in central Africa.

The “blowback” is the new fancy term coined by no other than Ron Paul to describe, rationalize or even justify blatant anti-Americanism from other countries. Once again, coming from Ron Paul, this concept is very idealistic, biased and with no anchor whatsoever in reality.

According to Ron Paul, if there is anti-Americanism in the world, it’s because America assaulted the “world” first and they are just defending themselves. It’s a very simplistic way of define these issues, and I’m sure that it fits perfectly the ethnomasochist mindset of most of our media.

To explain this concept he takes the examples of war in the middle-east. Not only does he blames our “preemptive” wars for the terrorist acts against America, but he even justifies them.
Obviously this is completely wrong, and the main reason of anti-Americanism in the world is that Americans adopted ethnomasochist views and rejected nationalism.

The same goes for immigration. In countries with strong national identity, the immigrants do everything they can to fit in, communitarianism only builds in ethnomasochist countries.

To get back to Ron Paul’s example of “blowback”, if what he was saying was true, how come the United States are the only ones touched by this “blowback” ?
Compared to some European countries, our intervention in the middle-east was fairly clean : no assaults on civilians, no lootings… Why is there no blowback for the Europeans ?

Does Ron Paul know anything about Al Qaeda ? They are said to target countries that oppose the charia laws.
But if that was really the case, why didn’t they target European countries who are much more islamophobic that the USA ? In the USA there is religious freedom, even the extremist Muslims can build mosques, wear religion symbols, not be discriminated by the judicial system due to their ethnics, and even burn American flags without being persecuted.

Moreover, the Wehrmacht and the Red Army have done much worse than the USA in eastern Europe, so why wasn’t there any blowback for them ?

Many of you already know, as I explained it in my article Ron Paul is the most hypocritical candidate, that Ron Paul had seen his popularity grow significantly since the last few years, not only in “American” media and European media. If I predicted the first case, see They all want change, the latter is for the least astonishing, especially for someone seen by our “American” media as the savior of our nation.

Maybe it’s Ron Paul’s opposition to any form of American patriotism that appeals the foreign so much ? Or maybe they like his ideas on free trade and small government ?
But if they support anti-patriotism in America, free trade in America and small governments in America, wouldn’t that mean that they also support those ideas in their own countries ?
Wrong.

Most of the medias supporting Ron Paul now are also the ones supporting the European nationalists groups, and honestly I don’t see any similitude in their programs.
Ron Paul and the European nationalist parties are both labelled as anti-system, or anti-establishment. In both cases, this is an incorrect label as neither Ron Paul nor the European nationalist parties are actually proposing anything fundamentally different than what’s in effect in their respective countries.

So now let’s review Ron Paul message :

Strong emphasis on morals and principles : ethics above patriotism

For free trade and against any border restrictions

Supporting globalism against nationalism

A very limited government

For government transparency

Against cultural ethnocentrism

And now let’s review the commonalities of many European nationalist programs :

Zero government transparency : control of the medias, control of mails/phone calls of citizens and applying even more the “reasons of state” (basically meaning that governments can’t be condemn for any crime/violation because they are acting in the best interests of the citizens)

For cultural ethnocentrism, and even the prohibition of American culture

It’s obvious that not only are there very few similarities (if any) between Ron Paul’s program and the European nationalist ideas, but they are actually opposite.
The only subject that they agree on is that they are both justifying and supporting anti-Americanism and anti-American terrorism.

This information is all verifiable, I can even provide you every political program of each party for the most recent years and you can compare for yourselves (if you read the languages).

Moreover, next time you see any foreign or “American” media supporting Ron Paul’s ideas, know that they are also supporting the opposite for their country. They just agree with anti-Americanism.
The same goes for any opposition to American governments.